Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're no taking the bait here

I feel like I've a mountain to climb....

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I can feel a song coming on,

Ford every stream, follow every bye way. .... etc



Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Captain Trips]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Their players aren’t the sharpest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gerrard puts his latest signing through his paces:

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...s-bid-failure/

Up in court on Friday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any updates anyone?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any updates anyone?

Two day evidence hearing on 14th August. Say one thing for King, he is good at kicking the can down the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

From the SFM site....


Today in Court( further to eJ’s posts)

Before Lord Bannatyne, Court 7, Parliament House.

Mr X ( I didn’t catch his name ) for the Takeover Panel,and one lawyer
Lord Davidson for the Respondent (Mr King), and two lawyers.

3 gentlemen of the Press, and eJ and I in the public gallery. No one else other than the Clerk,and the macer.

QC for the TOP: You will have seen, my Lord, the most recent ‘adjustments’ since 22nd June?
Lord B: (nods)
QC: I have three observations to make. First,The Respondent has not made an offer-nothing has been done since last April.

Secondly,the Court has already rejected the contention that there are no funds. The arguments are the same old arguments under a new guise. The Court is not about how the offer is to be made, but that it is made.

Third, on the Rangers FC website there is Dave King’s ‘supporters update’. I have a copy of it here, m’Lord , [ copy handed up]. The first page is about football, the second page is about off-field matters and the Takeover Panel. The second paragraph refers to South Africa, and funds……

Lord B: Yes, I saw it reported in the Times.

QC: ……. The delay has been caused by the Respondent.. there is the phrase ‘no end in sight’. And ‘no end in sight’? -it would be if there was compliance!

Lord B: I agree. I can’t personally deal but it could be by another judge in very short order: in a two-day hearing on 14 August.

I suggest I allow adjustment until August 7 , I imagine that there is nothing much more by way of ‘adjustment’. A proof. Whether discussion between Counsel could lead to an offer? Rather than King writing back and forth to the Takeover Panel?

QC: A two-day proof sounds about right. There might be a difficulty about dates ?

Lord B: Another judge has availability……Lord Davidson, have you anything to add?

Lord Davidson (QC for King): No, m’Lord.

Lord B: Can you agree that discussion with counsel could cut across the toing and froing? The Takeover Panel is interested only in compliance, not the ‘how’.

Lord Davidson: (smiling)My lord’s observations will be conveyed to Mr King. In his defence, the Takeover Panel contributed to delay by requiring him to move monies to the UK.

Lord B: I leave it to my Clerk to agree a date in August. I might have to impose a date, though.
Thank you.

Proceedings lasted no more than 20 minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/foot...mpression=true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From the SFM site....


Today in Court( further to eJ’s posts)

Before Lord Bannatyne, Court 7, Parliament House.

Mr X ( I didn’t catch his name ) for the Takeover Panel,and one lawyer
Lord Davidson for the Respondent (Mr King), and two lawyers.

3 gentlemen of the Press, and eJ and I in the public gallery. No one else other than the Clerk,and the macer.

QC for the TOP: You will have seen, my Lord, the most recent ‘adjustments’ since 22nd June?
Lord B: (nods)
QC: I have three observations to make. First,The Respondent has not made an offer-nothing has been done since last April.

Secondly,the Court has already rejected the contention that there are no funds. The arguments are the same old arguments under a new guise. The Court is not about how the offer is to be made, but that it is made.

Third, on the Rangers FC website there is Dave King’s ‘supporters update’. I have a copy of it here, m’Lord , [ copy handed up]. The first page is about football, the second page is about off-field matters and the Takeover Panel. The second paragraph refers to South Africa, and funds……

Lord B: Yes, I saw it reported in the Times.

QC: ……. The delay has been caused by the Respondent.. there is the phrase ‘no end in sight’. And ‘no end in sight’? -it would be if there was compliance!

Lord B: I agree. I can’t personally deal but it could be by another judge in very short order: in a two-day hearing on 14 August.

I suggest I allow adjustment until August 7 , I imagine that there is nothing much more by way of ‘adjustment’. A proof. Whether discussion between Counsel could lead to an offer? Rather than King writing back and forth to the Takeover Panel?

QC: A two-day proof sounds about right. There might be a difficulty about dates ?

Lord B: Another judge has availability……Lord Davidson, have you anything to add?

Lord Davidson (QC for King): No, m’Lord.

Lord B: Can you agree that discussion with counsel could cut across the toing and froing? The Takeover Panel is interested only in compliance, not the ‘how’.

Lord Davidson: (smiling)My lord’s observations will be conveyed to Mr King. In his defence, the Takeover Panel contributed to delay by requiring him to move monies to the UK.

Lord B: I leave it to my Clerk to agree a date in August. I might have to impose a date, though.
Thank you.

Proceedings lasted no more than 20 minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oooh that reads good - if I still smoked I'd be reaching for a cigarette right now .............................

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44901139

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scot...mpression=true

SMSM may be turning against King at last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Really sensible statement from a man facing a contempt of court hearing.

Looks like I was right about it not being sensible. Court didn’t like it one bit.

[Ozyhibby]

http://thenational.scot/news/1636884...m-share-offer/

Still going with the nonsense that Sevco shares can be sold at 27p a share.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

I can't believe a section of the Media have finally had the guts to tell it like it is:


"He did so this week with his start-of-season message to fans. Published on the Rangers website, this was intended to fuel a sense of Ibrox grievance that Rangers' financial difficulties are down to vexatious complaints from other clubs and former directors.
It's almost as if the Companies Act 2006 was not crystal clear on him being in the wrong, or that the Takeover Panel was unable to make up its own mind without pressure from the terracing at Parkhead.


Not for the first time, a Rangers chairman in difficulties has appealed to the faithful to back him against the perceived injustices of the outside world. And not for the first time, many of the Rangers faithful have failed to distinguish between the interests of their club and those of its chairman. "


(From the BBC link posted earlier)

[Jack Hackett]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't believe a section of the Media have finally had the guts to tell it like it is:


"He did so this week with his start-of-season message to fans. Published on the Rangers website, this was intended to fuel a sense of Ibrox grievance that Rangers' financial difficulties are down to vexatious complaints from other clubs and former directors.
It's almost as if the Companies Act 2006 was not crystal clear on him being in the wrong, or that the Takeover Panel was unable to make up its own mind without pressure from the terracing at Parkhead.


Not for the first time, a Rangers chairman in difficulties has appealed to the faithful to back him against the perceived injustices of the outside world. And not for the first time, many of the Rangers faithful have failed to distinguish between the interests of their club and those of its chairman. "


(From the BBC link posted earlier)

That'll be the Business/Economy Editor of the BBC barred from Ipox then.

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't believe a section of the Media have finally had the guts to tell it like it is:


"He did so this week with his start-of-season message to fans. Published on the Rangers website, this was intended to fuel a sense of Ibrox grievance that Rangers' financial difficulties are down to vexatious complaints from other clubs and former directors.
It's almost as if the Companies Act 2006 was not crystal clear on him being in the wrong, or that the Takeover Panel was unable to make up its own mind without pressure from the terracing at Parkhead.


Not for the first time, a Rangers chairman in difficulties has appealed to the faithful to back him against the perceived injustices of the outside world. And not for the first time, many of the Rangers faithful have failed to distinguish between the interests of their club and those of its chairman. "


(From the BBC link posted earlier)

Basically King's just taking a leaf out of 'Stupor Ally's play-book as he did with his infamous demand for names of the SFA disciplinary-panel - it's an under-handed message to the hordes to 'Let the death-threats begin' !

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Basically King's just taking a leaf out of 'Stupor Ally's play-book as he did with his infamous demand for names of the SFA disciplinary-panel - it's an under-handed message to the hordes to 'Let the death-threats begin' !

Or Chuckles Green and his claims that anybody that didn't agree with him was an anti-Rangers 'Bigot'.

Some of their knuckle dragging Fans still use the term as a defence mechanism.

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Or Chuckles Green and his claims that anybody that didn't agree with him was an anti-Rangers 'Bigot'.

Some of their knuckle dragging Fans still use the term as a defence mechanism.

I'm not sure that Charles Green believed that, more inclined to think he was playing them for the fools that they are.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure that Charles Green believed that, more inclined to think he was playing them for the fools that they are.

As is King.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As is King.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a shadow of a doubt.

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That'll be the Business/Economy Editor of the BBC barred from Ipox then.

Think he was lucky that the really hard hitting stuff was only in the print version not in his Reporting Scotland report.

[Ozyhibby]

I took this from the bottom of this article but I think they are very important questions.


https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/bl...mpression=true

—————————

Is every professional club in Scotland subject to the same disciplinary code?

We are going to find out very soon, but the existence of a document which essentially gives one of them a sort of blanket immunity from past sins is something no other football body in the world would permit. It is clear that Sevco has conducted itself in a truly appalling fashion throughout its short history, with everything from statements that bring the game into disrepute and for which nothing was done, to the behaviour of its fans about which nothing is ever done.

The club does seem to exist in a world where rules don’t apply … perhaps that’s because they have it in writing.

Does the SFA have a disciplinary process that applies to only one club and if so why, and how can they possibly justify that?

As an adjunct to the first question this is vital.

Because Sevco does not seem subject to the same processes and procedures as only clubs either. How can it be that this investigation took so long in the first place? What made this different from every other allegation that the Judicial Review Board has to consider? Politics, yes. But the way this was done still stinks. It took an age to report in the first place, and now the case has been handed off elsewhere?

Can all member clubs of the SFA refuse to have their rule breaking adjudicated by the National Association?

Vitally important.

Sevco is actually telling the SFA that is has no right to open this case, and the SFA has somehow, perversely, agreed to put that question to another body. Is this to be the norm for clubs which come up before the beaks? What makes Sevco so special?

That they’ve been allowed to do this suggests that the answer to question two is a yes … and if that’s the case, then surely that’s discriminatory against all the rest? Or are we wrong? Is the answer to question two a no … and the answer to this one a yes instead?

And where does that leave our game?

Are UEFA aware of, and comfortable with, a legal agreement between the SFA and Rangers which takes authority out of the hands of the SFA?

This might well be the most important question of all of them.

The SFA rulebook exists in the shadow of the UEFA one, and it is formed out of the FIFA statutes. Are we really expected to believe that an agreement which indemnified one club from sanctions, or let a non-national association body adjudicate them, when all other clubs are treated according to the regulations we all live by, would meet the approval of the European governing body?

It is almost inconceivable that UEFA would agree to that.

The Five Way Agreement itself is a violation of UEFA regulations, which clearly and concisely cut through the whole “club versus company” argument on which the Survival Lie depends.

Their definition of what “a club” is leaves no room for doubt; they make no distinction between the two which means that when Rangers died they were gone and Sevco is a different entity.

That they give the club the same coefficient points as the old one appears to be a flat contradiction of policy, but it flows from the SFA’s own position on the matter.

But that position is based on a document which does make clear distinctions between Sevco and Rangers, and sets them out clearly.

It is the basis of the Survival Lie, yes, but it also contradicts itself in the number of times it clearly separates the two entities … the Five Way Agreement is actually the enshrining of a lie which all involved freely admit is a lie.

It is a document that says “we know Rangers died but this document will commit to treating Sevco as if they were Rangers … except when that would be inconvenient for us.”

Which is to say that UEFA allows Sevco and the SFA to maintain this fiction on the clear understanding that the sins of Rangers will be paid for by the current Ibrox club. If the SFA has given Sevco immunity from those charges then, yes … I think UEFA would have a problem with that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack Hackett]

... and yet the silence from UEFA almost drowns the cacophony of noise from Sevco

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

The Clumpany making fun of Sevco now......

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/20...ics-statement/

[pacorosssco]

[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;5474624]I took this from the bottom of this article but I think they are very important questions.


https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/bl...mpression=true

—————————

Is every professional club in Scotland subject to the same disciplinary code?

We are going to find out very soon, but the existence of a document which essentially gives one of them a sort of blanket immunity from past sins is something no other football body in the world would permit. It is clear that Sevco has conducted itself in a truly appalling fashion throughout its short history, with everything from statements that bring the game into disrepute and for which nothing was done, to the behaviour of its fans about which nothing is ever done.

The club does seem to exist in a world where rules don’t apply … perhaps that’s because they have it in writing.

Does the SFA have a disciplinary process that applies to only one club and if so why, and how can they possibly justify that?

As an adjunct to the first question this is vital.

Because Sevco does not seem subject to the same processes and procedures as only clubs either. How can it be that this investigation took so long in the first place? What made this different from every other allegation that the Judicial Review Board has to consider? Politics, yes. But the way this was done still stinks. It took an age to report in the first place, and now the case has been handed off elsewhere?

Can all member clubs of the SFA refuse to have their rule breaking adjudicated by the National Association?

Vitally important.

Sevco is actually telling the SFA that is has no right to open this case, and the SFA has somehow, perversely, agreed to put that question to another body. Is this to be the norm for clubs which come up before the beaks? What makes Sevco so special?

That they’ve been allowed to do this suggests that the answer to question two is a yes … and if that’s the case, then surely that’s discriminatory against all the rest? Or are we wrong? Is the answer to question two a no … and the answer to this one a yes instead?

And where does that leave our game?

Are UEFA aware of, and comfortable with, a legal agreement between the SFA and Rangers which takes authority out of the hands of the SFA?

This might well be the most important question of all of them.

The SFA rulebook exists in the shadow of the UEFA one, and it is formed out of the FIFA statutes. Are we really expected to believe that an agreement which indemnified one club from sanctions, or let a non-national association body adjudicate them, when all other clubs are treated according to the regulations we all live by, would meet the approval of the European governing body?

It is almost inconceivable that UEFA would agree to that.

The Five Way Agreement itself is a violation of UEFA regulations, which clearly and concisely cut through the whole “club versus company” argument on which the Survival Lie depends.

Their definition of what “a club” is leaves no room for doubt; they make no distinction between the two which means that when Rangers died they were gone and Sevco is a different entity.

That they give the club the same coefficient points as the old one appears to be a flat contradiction of policy, but it flows from the SFA’s own position on the matter.

But that position is based on a document which does make clear distinctions between Sevco and Rangers, and sets them out clearly.

It is the basis of the Survival Lie, yes, but it also contradicts itself in the number of times it clearly separates the two entities … the Five Way Agreement is actually the enshrining of a lie which all involved freely admit is a lie.

It is a document that says “we know Rangers died but this document will commit to treating Sevco as if they were Rangers … except when that would be inconvenient for us.”

Which is to say that UEFA allows Sevco and the SFA to maintain this fiction on the clear understanding that the sins of Rangers will be paid for by the current Ibrox club. If the SFA has given Sevco immunity from those charges then, yes … I think UEFA would have a problem with that.


All valid points but with Uefa/Fifa being exposed to breaking their own rules and guilty of mass corruptions you have the answer

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Clumpany making fun of Sevco now......

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/20...ics-statement/

Sorry what have Celtic said?

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry what have Celtic said?

It's in relation to Sevco reducing Celtic's ticket allocation against them. Developed into a bit of a tit for tat but there is a link to the statement in the second line.....

[Billy Whizz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's in relation to Sevco reducing Celtic's ticket allocation against them. Developed into a bit of a tit for tat.....

Sorry, I saw that on STV news
Totally agree with Celtic on this one. Just chopping away tickets without some sort of dialogue is poor. But we’ve come to expect this sort of behaviour from the Rangers now

[Deansy]

I thought they (King/Hun) were in court for (whatever's their latest crime/offence ??) something yesterday or am I just getting lost in all their legal shenanigans ??

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought they (King/Hun) were in court for (whatever's their latest crime/offence ??) something yesterday or am I just getting lost in all their legal shenanigans ??

King Hun?

Is that the new title for whoever's in charge of The Rangers?

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry, I saw that on STV news
Totally agree with Celtic on this one. Just chopping away tickets without some sort of dialogue is poor. But we’ve come to expect this sort of behaviour from the Rangers now

We reduced Sevco's allocation last season, and will hopefully do so to both cheeks this year.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic statement from Sevco, was there much dialogue between the clubs?